Debate Over The Right To Compel People To Make Gay/antigay Cakes

[Winchester]

Maggie makes a really good point - there's already legal precedence for companies being allowed religious exemptions if they're small enough and are consistent enough (i.e. Hobby Lobby and Obamacare). But that's the other side of it, do they operate as a religious bakery or make discriminating decisions about their customer base (such as divorces, second marriages, etc)? If they're opposed to writing pro-gay messages on their cakes, then they have an obligation to make sure they aren't supporting second marriages and the like. You can't just pick and choose when you're going to enforce your Christian morality. On the other (third?) hand, generic Christian morality is so nebulous and grey, picking and choosing what moral rules you care about seems par for the course for many Christians. 

 

On the other hand, if someone wanted to sue a bakery for refusing to write something racist on a cake, would the courts entertain that idea? I doubt as many people would have a problem with it.

Yet another issue solved by not hitting people and not taking their stuff.

 

At one time, there were legal precedents for returning escaped slaves to their masters. I do wish Catholics would reject the priesthood that is the US "justice" system. Honestly.

[Maggyie]

I guess I didn't really answer the OP. My point was a Catholic business owner would be perfectly justified in baking the cake. Their participation in the badness would be minuscule vs the good of keeping their business, avoiding scandalizing non Christians who won't get it, etc. I'm not sure they should be compelled to do so though. It's cake, not housing.

[Socrates]

(Reposted to correct thread.  I had earlier posted this in the wrong thread by accident.)

 

Winchester already made the point succinctly, but what messages a baker chooses to put or not put on a cake is none of the government's business.

 

If a bakery were refusing to bake a regular birthday cake for Bob because Bob happened to be homosexual, there might be a problem, but that's not what this is about: it's about government forcing private businesses to provide a products with a message that goes against their moral or religious beliefs.  (Falls under free practice of religion.)

 

Should a bakery be forced to bake cakes with a blatantly racist or anti-Semitic message? 

Or should a business be forced to cater KKK or neo-Nazi meetings?

My point isn’t that a “gay marriage” is the same as Nazism, but about where does one draw the line when forcing private business owners to provide products or services that violate their sincere morals or beliefs?

Or what if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake with a satanic message?  (I'm sure that's the next big legal case.)

 

Wherever there’s a demand, supply will exist to fulfill it and profit from it . That’s the beauty of the free market.  If one baker doesn’t want to bake you a gay cake, another will be happy to bake it for you instead.

If a car dealer only deals Fords and you want a Chevy, you can go to the Chevy dealer down the street.

 

Forcing Christian bakeries and such to deliver products contrary to their Faith and morals makes as much sense as legally forcing Christian bookstores to carry pornography and copies of The Satanic Bible.  (Okay, I should shut up before I start giving the bleeding hearts too many ideas.)

 

As for the discussion of whether or not refusing to bake "gay" cakes or whatever is or isn't good business, that's for the individual business owners to decide and is irrelevant to the issue of whether private businesses should be forced by government decree.  There's no need for government coercion, heretical as that notion may be to some.

[Maggyie]

Well the thing with wedding cakes is there is not usually a message on them. It's not like with party cakes. With wedding cakes you don't even provide the baker with the cake topper.

The issue is exactly that, they don't want to provide a cake because the people getting married are gay.

It's not the same thing as Chevy vs Ford. There is no such thing as a gay cake. They are all the exact same product it's about who is doing the ordering.

[Socrates]

Well the thing with wedding cakes is there is not usually a message on them. It's not like with party cakes. With wedding cakes you don't even provide the baker with the cake topper.

The issue is exactly that, they don't want to provide a cake because the people getting married are gay.

It's not the same thing as Chevy vs Ford. There is no such thing as a gay cake. They are all the exact same product it's about who is doing the ordering.

 

My point about persons in private business being forced to cater events contrary to their moral conscience still stands.

[Winchester]

I don't see why it matters if it contradicts your moral stances or not. If I don't want to make a cake for you, forcing me to do so is wrong. Even if you enlist the aid of a third party that supposedly possesses some kind of mystical powers of justice.

[Slappo]

What's more patriarchal than two dudes getting married?

Uhh... the king of Rome sacking a city just b/c is definitely more patriarchal than gain marriage...

[kyrie eleison]

It's very sad to see what is happening to this country and throughout the rest of the world. Why should a shop owner, who in theory owns and controls all items/supplies/ingredients in their shop, including labor, be forced to sell any of their goods to anyone no matter what? If it's my shop and I don't want to sell my stuff but would rather tell someone to beat it and forfeit a sale isnt that my right as a free American? I guess now that we've been totally taken over by flaming liberal left wingers the answer is no.....we must concede and follow the rest of the sheeple. The voice of the minority becomes the majority.....whether you want it or not....guess that's what being equal means these days. It's a form of terrorism if you ask me....we've become targets of a group of extremists who want to snuff us out. Best pray hard is all I have to say.

[Slappo]

The flip side to this is where does my right to refuse service draw the line (taking morality out of the picture)?

 

Sorry I only make cakes for white people, and you're black, so I'm choosing not to provide my goods/services to you.

[Winchester]

The flip side to this is where does my right to refuse service draw the line (taking morality out of the picture)?

 

Sorry I only make cakes for white people, and you're black, so I'm choosing not to provide my goods/services to you.

That's just an emotional appeal. You've simply chosen a decision more people will find repugnant. You're still dealing with the same issue, which is a question of when A has the right to force B to provide a service. 

 

It makes no sense to inject moral objection into the issue. I doubt a shop owner has a moral objection to selling stuff after whatever closing time he chooses, but he does possess the right to close his shop, even though that means denying service to those who would seek it after a certain hour. 

 

It boils down to this very simple premise: Other people are not your property. 

[kyrie eleison]

This debate really comes down to the principles of freedom and license, where freedom embraces responsibility and is guided by reason and virtue, and license is choice without restraint. One major problem in the whole "gay rights movement" is that these principles are confused. They claim to want the freedom of equality for their "lifestyle" of sodomy and other licentious behavior yet make a point to purposely draw attention to themselves so as to set themselves apart. Thus, what they really want is license to do as they please without obstacle. So, if you refuse to bake them a cake for their so called wedding they sue you and plaster your gay-hating face on the news. And the bleeding heart society in which we now live validates and celebrates these actions and offers them unrestricted license for their disordered behavior.

Now I'm not saying that we should treat individuals who are gay any differently.....we are called to hate the sin not the sinner. This debate also shouldn't be projected to those gay individuals who live out their lives in a celibate state and in accordance with the laws of the Lord. But I'm sorry...I just don't see how being forced to condone sodomy and other sinful behavior meets the definition of freedom. In fact, it seems to be the exact opposite. No one should be forced to participate directly or indirectly in the sins of others. The problem here boils down to this.......most of society doesnt believe in God, His Church, Satan, or HELL. I'm okay, you're okay, we're all okay.....moral relativism is okay. The moral decay of society has led to what we see now. Kyrie eleison.

"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

[Slappo]

That's just an emotional appeal. You've simply chosen a decision more people will find repugnant. You're still dealing with the same issue, which is a question of when A has the right to force B to provide a service. 

 

It most certainly isn't an emotional appeal. It is trying to get people to look at the full extent of what positing that we have the right to refuse business to whoever we want means. The fact that more most find it repugnant is simply a side effect.

 

It could extend far past color though. "Sorry this emergency medical facility doesn't serve women... yes I understand that you are about to die and I'm the only one with a medical facility within 50 miles, but I reserve the right to refuse service to you."

[Slappo]

Maybe you're ok with an absolute right to refuse service to anyone under any circumstance Winchester, but the vast majority of society is not. In addition, many may be willing to go along with such an extreme idea in the context of refusing such a mundane service as baked cake, but when they realize the extremes of the position, they might re-think things. I'm pointing out the extremes of the position so people are well aware of the extent to which such position leads.

[Socrates]

The flip side to this is where does my right to refuse service draw the line (taking morality out of the picture)?

 

Sorry I only make cakes for white people, and you're black, so I'm choosing not to provide my goods/services to you.

 

Honestly, I'm disappointed you descended to the fallacious comparison to racial discrimination.

 

Refusing to bake cakes or otherwise cater a "gay wedding" isn't about refusing service to persons because of racial or other characteristics, but refusing to cater a particular event which is inherently morally objectionable.

 

See the earlier example of refusing to cater a KKK meeting.  I'm sure most bleeding hearts would have no problem with such a decision, and even consider it praiseworthy.

Refusing to cater a homosexual "wedding" isn't really any different, though the two events may be morally objectionable for different reasons.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Socrates

[Maggyie]

What about an interracial wedding. Plenty of people have issues with that still. I have even heard of fundamentalist churches where the immorality of such unions is an article of faith. They like black people (allegedly) just think race mixing is unbiblical.... Somehow. And so would not want to bake a cake.